Stations with balanced lineups

[JimmyJames]

I'm curious if there are examples out there of stations that carry a "balanced" or less bombastic talk lineup, including hosts of left, right and perhaps moderate or other political views. I'd like to hear what such a talk format would sound like. Also are there any good local hosts that are of a more moderate or liberal bent that are entertaining and worth streaming?

 

[storrs19]

I've never come across one yet. 700 WLW in Cincinnati is still almost all local (except for midnight to 5:00am) which is amazing for a Clear Channel owned station in 2009 but most of their hosts are right leaning and some of them are syndicated nationally (Mike McConnell and Bill Cunningham). However, unlike WHAS 840 AM in Louisville 700 WLW has live local weather at least twice an hour, 24 hours a day which is nice when bad weather breaks out.

My guess is a balanced station would not fly for the same reason Top 40 from 40 years ago is gone. People seem not to like a balance any more. They jast want to hear hosts who agree with their point of view or music that they enjoy and nothing else. Now me, I loved Top 40 radio (where you could hear Frank Sinatra, Led Zepplin, Jackson Five, The Who, and just about anything that was popular at the time).

 

[radiotower40]

If you are looking for less political talk, you might want to try 720 AM WGN in Chicago. They do focus a lot
on Chicago issue's, but; they also just talk about a lot about movies, entertainment....etc. They are also
local 24/7.

As a matter of fact the guy that used to run WLW, Kevin Methany, is now running WGN.

Their website to listen live is www.wgnradio.com

 

[R.D.P.]

Here's a link to such a station.  It's in Fort Payne Alabama.  They're located just west of the Georgia state line.

http://1400wfpa.net/

Hope this helps!

R.D.P. <><

 

[storrs19]

Yes, sometimes I listen to 720 WGN in the morning via the internet. They have a nice program schedule and it sounds all local and live for the most part which is also a switch. Does WGN even carry any syndicated programming?

 

[KeithE4]

I'm curious if there are examples out there of stations that carry a "balanced" or less bombastic talk lineup, including hosts of left, right and perhaps moderate or other political views. I'd like to hear what such a talk format would sound like. Also are there any good local hosts that are of a more moderate or liberal bent that are entertaining and worth streaming?

WLS Chicago's original (1989-92) daytime talk lineup was balanced: Don Wade & Roma (Conservative/Liberal), Stacey Taylor (Libertarian), Rush Limbaugh (Conservative), and Bob Lassiter (Uber-liberal).

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Wilmington Delaware's WDEL does live and local during the dayparts. After the morning drive time newsblock, Al Messetti does the liberal talk show, 9am-12noon. Then the noontime newshour, then 1pm-4pm Rick Jensen with the conserative talk show. At 4pm - 6pm the PM drive newsblock. Night time is Phillies baseball, college football, Monday night football, etc, when no sports are being aired, conservative Laura Ingraham, then a satellite sports talk show after her show.

Unlike Wilmington's other news/talker WILM that airs many more hours of conservative talk than liberal talk: local liberal talker John Watson (9am-11:30am). The rest of their lineup, other than newsblocks include:12-3pm Rush, 3pm-6pmHannity, 7pm-10pm Savage, 10pm to 12 midnight Levin. That's a lot of conservative talk. Granted during the overnight from midnight to 3am liberal Jim Bohannan with the first two hours being repeated to 5am helps to "balance" out the broadcast day.

 

[Steven21]

In Buffalo/Niagara Falls, market leader WBEN has had an interesting mix of hosts for a few years. In particular, Ron Dobson, who I find much more entertaining style-wise than the typical talkradio ideologues that are so common now. He doesn't dwell on politics, but at different times shows disdain for both sides of the aisle, which means you can't really pigeon-hole him ideologically. He takes conservative or liberal positions on issues, depending on the issue.

You never really know where he's going to go with something, which I find infinitely more interesting than the constant one-theme drum beat that ssems to dominate talkradio these days.

 

[DToTheJ]

Washington, D.C. used to have such a radio station with left and right hosts, the now-defunct "3WT", with lefties like Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller as well as right-wingers like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. In fact, their slogan was: "Left, right, and whatever we want!" Kinda like the "Jack-FM" of talk radio. Is it any wonder why they're no longer on the air today?

 

[FilioScotia]

My theory is that the reason for the near nonexistence of "balanced" talk stations is just the latest proof of an old radio truism. Radio owners learned a long time ago that block programming doesn't work. Stations that try to be all things to all people in formats are doomed to fail.

I've seen it happen time and again. In block programming, a station will program -- say -- just for the sake of discussion -- easy listening in the morning, hard rock in the afternoon, country and folk music in the evening, and jazz at night. You get the idea. Something for everybody. The problem is that the fragmentation of the listening audience scares advertisers away. Each daypart has a different audience with different demos, and failure is always the result.

I think the same process is at work with talk radio. A station can't fragment the audience with hosts covering every corner of the political spectrum. Owners have learned that to maintain a strong advertising base, they have to be all conservative or all liberal. And these days, love'em or hate'em, it's the conservatives who pull the bigger audiences.

 

[cm454]

And these days, love'em or hate'em, it's the conservatives who pull the bigger audiences.

That's only after 20 years of skewing the programming to appeal only to conservatives. Many of these same legendary talkradio stations did just as well ratings-wise when they had PERSONALITIES on the air who had various political slants. Nobody understood that more than former WABC PD John Mainelli. The consistant thread needs to be interesting and engaging people.

Unfortunately, radio programmers are a lazy and uncreative bunch on the whole. Copycatting is the order of the day across all formats, so let's not delude ourselves into rewriting history in thinking only conservative Americans like to hear compelling conversation---'cause it just ain't true.

Time and time again, people come on these boards, ignore the chronology of events that led talkradio to where it is today, and offer up some misguided hypothesis to justify the one-themed drum beat of today's talkradio. People with vision know how short-sighted this slant in talkradio really is and how limiting it ultimately will be.

Moreso than evcer before, people have been trained to believe that all you're ever going to hear on talkradio is a Rush Limbaugh redux in many different voices. This at a time when radio has monumental challenges ahead in keeping and attracting the average person. It's sad that so many will take this as an assault on conservatism rather than a roadmap to returning to more engaging and entertaining talkradio that can appeal to a wider variety of people.

 

[FilioScotia]

Looking past cm454's condescending reply, regardless of what you think of my theory, I still say the only reliable way to judge what people want to hear on the radio is to actually study what they are listening to.

I think we can agree that in most parts of the country it's the conservative talkers that are drawing the big audiences. It's not a myth that Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio personality on the planet. Hannity, Beck, and Savage aren't far behind.

What are they doing that the liberals aren't? This is just a guess, but I think it's because conservatives are more fun to listen to than libs. Agree with them or don't, conservatives can be outrageously funny and entertaining. Libs, for all their closeness with the entertainment industry, have no idea how to put an entertaining talk show on the air. No clue. It's just beyond them. They come across as hapless whiners.

In my opinion, this why liberal talkers can't draw flies or get arrested in most parts of the country, including mine. Many owners and programmers won't go near them. I live in Houston and it's been so long since Houston has had a liberal talker I can't even name one. I have no idea who today's liberal talkers are.

But, the airwaves would be saturated with them if programmers could be convinced that the audience and the dollars are there. Money is the only language programmers know.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Looking past cm454's condescending reply, regardless of what you think of my theory, I still say the only reliable way to judge what people want to hear on the radio is to actually study what they are listening to.

I think we can agree that in most parts of the country it's the conservative talkers that are drawing the big audiences. It's not a myth that Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio personality on the planet. Hannity, Beck, and Savage aren't far behind.

What are they doing that the liberals aren't? This is just a guess, but I think it's because conservatives are more fun to listen to than libs. Agree with them or don't, conservatives can be outrageously funny and entertaining. Libs, for all their closeness with the entertainment industry, have no idea how to put an entertaining talk show on the air. No clue. It's just beyond them. They come across as hapless whiners.

In my opinion, this why liberal talkers can't draw flies or get arrested in most parts of the country, including mine. Many owners and programmers won't go near them. I live in Houston and it's been so long since Houston has had a liberal talker I can't even name one. I have no idea who today's liberal talkers are.

But, the airwaves would be saturated with them if programmers could be convinced that the audience and the dollars are there. Money is the only language programmers know.

Filio, I do not find outrageously funny or entertaining hosts like Savage who have a history of telling gay men like myself to get AIDS and die.

As for liberal talkers not being able to draw audiences...Talkers Magazine continuously has five liberal talkers listed among the 40 having national audiences of a million or more. The highest-rated liberal talker, Dial Global's Ed Schultz, has taken his radio success and also become a host on MSNBC. To call him or any of the other liberal talkers on the list a whiner is just plain ignorance on your part.

Those of us who had the chance to listen to the likes of Ed or Stephanie Miller are now relying on podcasts if we can no longer listen to them in our markets. In other words, Filio, we are turning off our radios--meaning more stations will lose audiences and more people in the industry will lose their jobs. The conservative hosts you champion have often replaced local hosts that were the backbone of many station's lineups. Is it any wonder the New York Post reported recently that Clear Channel, which syndicates Limbaugh and Beck, is on the vergre of bankruptcy?

And you call cm454's reply condescending...yeah, right.

 

[radiotower40]

WCPT AM 820 0.2 share
WCPT FM 92.7 0.1 share
WCPQ FM 99.9 0.2 share
WCPY FM No show in the spring book.
That is a 0.5 share for FOUR stations.
These are 4 stations in Chicago, which is the home of President Barack Obama. If that can't spark enough interest
to gain a higher share than they do, I don't know what could. These rating's have been about where they are now,
during the campaign as well.

I'm not trying to judge anyone on their view's, I'm just trying to point out things the way I see them.

One thing I can say is that if they station's were not owned by Fred Eyechaner, who is a man with deep pockets,
and a big donor to the Democratic party, I highly doubt they would still be on the air.

In all fairness; he has a couple of very good show's on Saturday's including a local conservative host Jake Hartford
and a former local TV reporter named Dick Kay, who is liberal, but; very fair to caller's of both sides. Both these
shows are enjoyable to listen too, whether you agree with the host or not.

I have tried to listen to the syndicated hosts on the station(which make up the entire weekday lineup), and I don't
find them entertaining whatsoever. One host who I used to enjoy listening to was Ed Shultz, I didn't agree with him
most of the time, but; I liked to hear a different perspective than mine. I no longer can stomach Ed and his tirades, he
has gotten so angry on the air, especially after getting his show on MSNBC.

This is just one man's opinion, but; their side won and yet they still come off as angry, why? Do I still need to be
hearing about what a bad person Palin is? She lost, why not leave her alone already, she has no affect on what is
going on in DC today. 

It basically boils down to the host's and the rating's they deliver, whether you like Rush or not, none of these host's
are even putting a dent in his rating's here, and I don't think it is because a lack of available listener's.

 

[cm454]

It is truly remarkable how ignorant some are as to the history of this format. This explains the many misguided theories as to the current state of talkradio. Many would have you would think that talk stations never had good ratings before they started pandering to one political bent.

Again, EDUCATE yourself as to how this format morphed into what it is today AND recognize how ill-prepared many lib-talk hosts were to DO RADIO and you'll start to understand that ideology is NOT what draws listeners. Entertaining PEOPLE draw listeners. Unfortunately, now that talk stations have systematically slanted their programming in one direction, the short-sighted Monday morning quarterbacks are revising history.

And this notion that only conservatives can be funny is...laughable! There are some very UNfunny conservatives, just as there are some very funny libs. There are funny and unfunny on both sides. Some are just looking at the current situation and hypothesizing about why it is the way it is. It's very frustrating to read this nonsense if you were actually observing the talkradio metamorphasis as it was taking place during the last 15-20 years.

 

[radiotower40]

I am not ignorant to the history of talk radio. I grew up listening to some of the greatest in Chicago, Wally Phillips,
Eddie Schwartz, Bob Collins, Larry Lujack and many others. For you to come on to a discussion forum such as this and
call everyone that disagrees with you ignorant and uneducated is ludicrous.

This thread was started by someone who wanted to know if there are any more balanced stations that he could
listen to, and I responded to his question, as many other posters did, with what I thought was a station he may
be interested in.

What happened then? Once again people take the thread off track, and some fill it with the usual, if you don't
agree with me you're ignorant, you're uneducated, you're opinion is not valid, and talking down to people as
if they are so much better than other's. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but; I've seen it so often on the talk
radio threads that sadly it has become the norm.


After this thread had been taken off it's original topic, I responded with the ratings for the progressive talk
station, and how dismal they are (I also stated that the shows I felt were the best on the station were the
LOCAL shows), As per usual I was given no explanation as to why this was the case, just more of what I described
in the above paragraph.

It would be great if we could discuss something here without the same people time and time again, telling
any one that has a different opinion than them, that their point's are "ignorant" and "uneducated". These are
radio discussion boards after all. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with each other, but; it can be done
with out the arrogance that probably drives people away from discussing things!

Have a great night,
TR

 

[cm454]

Saying that someone is uneducated or ignorant is not an insult. It is simply underlining the common occurence where people like to hypothesize about a subject, yet have very little background information, or even a basic understanding of the format's evolution, to substantiate their claims.

Typically, it is those who share the beliefs of the conservative hosts who make up the lions share of talkradio these days, who like to erase history and make it seem as though this is to forever be a format of Rush Limbaugh clones, rather than a personality driven format that draws from most demographics. Usually at this point, the novice will say "but only conservatives will listen" at which point I have to point out again, that the format has been skewed over time due to a lack of creativeness rather than a big call for conservative hosts. When you are dealing with those who do not understand the course of events that led us here, you end up in a circular argument.

I did not say the theories are stupid, which would be an insult. I merely said they are ignorant, which connotes a lack of accurate information.

 

[JimmyJames]

Of course, talk radio suffers from increasing non-localness that makes it harder to develop truly entertaining shows of any point of view, liberal or otherwise. I think if these shows were developed and new talent brought in, on entertainment value, there could be more balanced talk stations that were still entertaining.

 

[Parttimer]

The conservative hosts you champion have often replaced local hosts that were the backbone of many station's lineups. Is it any wonder the New York Post reported recently that Clear Channel, which syndicates Limbaugh and Beck, is on the vergre of bankruptcy?

CC's financial condition has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Limbaugh and Beck replacing local hosts. It has everything to do with a bad business model that led them to pay too much for stations, and an even worse deal in taking the company private.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

The conservative hosts you champion have often replaced local hosts that were the backbone of many station's lineups. Is it any wonder the New York Post reported recently that Clear Channel, which syndicates Limbaugh and Beck, is on the vergre of bankruptcy?

CC's financial condition has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Limbaugh and Beck replacing local hosts. It has everything to do with a bad business model that led them to pay too much for stations, and an even worse deal in taking the company private.

This.

The problem is the music stations not bringing in enough money and the inability to make it's debt service. The talk stations are all very profitable. If you can't sell Limbaugh you need to be fired.